Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!kodak!ispd-newsserver!ism.isc.com!emisle!dvb
From: dvb@emisle.uucp (David Van Beveren)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: R5 wish
Keywords: r5
Message-ID: <1991Jun2.234509.1263@emisle.uucp>
Date: 2 Jun 91 23:45:09 GMT
References: <49747@ut-emx.uucp>
Reply-To: dvb@emisle.UUCP (David Van Beveren)
Organization: Emerald Isle Systems, Ltd. Agoura Hills, CA
Lines: 41

In article <49747@ut-emx.uucp> chudnall@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christopher D. Hudnall) writes:
>- - - - - -[Vincent Fox said]
>| Couldn't the distribution be unified under one tree?  It currently
>|
>| A default of /usr/X11, with a single variable in the Makefile so it could
>| easily be relocated to /usr/local/X11 or some such would be just peachy.
>
>Careful...remember that compilation and linking like to find things
>under /usr/lib and /usr/include.  Even though /usr/X11/bin would be
>okay (though that has its own problems...), changing the other two
>would be problematic.
>

You know, X is not part of 'vanilla' unix. (Yet). And until it is, putting
things in /usr/include, /usr/lib and /usr/bin is uncalled for. This is
especially true for things that are hard coded in clients, and there are still
a few of those around. Could you imagine a DOS application program that
insisted on being on the C: drive in a certain directory. That program would
be considered very non-flexible. (aka bad)

I know you can put move most of X by editing 20 or so lines in 2 or 3
different parts of the Imake environment. But, most users of X are not X
hackers, and this is not clearly documented anywhere, and even if it was,
why make it so difficult? Is it the elite attitude of some system programmers
"IF it is too difficult for you, then you are just a inferior sysadmin.."
that causes this? I am not an X hack, although I have been programming with X
for about 3 years steady. I could probably figure out how to do it without
too much trouble, but why should it require any effort at all?

My advice to MIT is to put X in a completely separate tree. All compilers
and OSes in the world have facilities for naming alternate directories for
include files and libs (-I, -L, etc.). Well, maybe not all, but close enough
to matter. If the OS requires things to go into certain directories, make
that part of the .cf files for that OS. But, the default should not be what
it is. Its just plain arrogant. Of course, I doubt that this will happen with
R5 or ever.

-- 
David Van Beveren                           INTERNET: emisle!dvb@ism.isc.com
EIS ltd. Professional Software Services     UUCP:   ..uunet!emisle!dvb
voice: (818) 587-1247